Allen v. Allen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. Allen

542 So. 2d 1069, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1191, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2709, 1989 WL 49608

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2072

StatusPublished

This text of 542 So. 2d 1069 (Allen v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Allen, 542 So. 2d 1069, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1191, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2709, 1989 WL 49608 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm the trial court’s denial of credit to the husband for monies he was ordered to spend on the marital home, the exclusive possession of which was awarded to the wife. Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 635 (Fla.1986). However, the failure to specify the period of the wife’s exclusive occupancy of the marital home or the specific conditions which will terminate that exclusive occupancy requires remand to the trial court for clarification and amendment of the judgment. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Warren v. Warren, 480 So.2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a de novo hearing on the issue of exclusive occupancy, if necessary.

NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BARFIELD, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm the trial court’s denial of credit to the husband for monies he was ordered to spend on the marital home, the exclusive possession of which was awarded to the wife. Pastore v. Pastore, 497 So.2d 635 (Fla.1986). However, the failure to specify the period of the wife’s exclusive occupancy of the marital home or the specific conditions which will terminate that exclusive occupancy requires remand to the trial court for clarification and amendment of the judgment. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Warren v. Warren, 480 So.2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a de novo hearing on the issue of exclusive occupancy, if necessary.

NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 So. 2d 1069, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1191, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2709, 1989 WL 49608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-allen-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack